Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:32:17 07/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2003 at 14:56:36, Matthew Hull wrote: >On July 14, 2003 at 14:27:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 14, 2003 at 13:38:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2003 at 03:27:27, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2003 at 00:00:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 13, 2003 at 15:03:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 13, 2003 at 12:42:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I (and many others) believe that the Elo system works well for players >>>>>>>that are pretty close in rating. It seems to work less well (in the case >>>>>>>of computers) for players that are significantly separated in ratings. >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree mostly, not sure why it should be different for computers though. >>>>> >>>>>I'm not either. But if you watch a 2000 computer play a 2600 computer, it >>>>>_seems_ to me that the 2000 computer wins more games than it should. Or at >>>>>least draws more than it should. I certainly can't prove this however, but >>>>>experience seems to (at least in my case) support this conclusion. >>>> >>>>What experience? >>> >>>On servers. >>> >>>At a couple of dozen ACM and WCCC and WMCCC events. >>> >>>on matches played here locally during testing. >>> >>>Etc. >>> >>>> >>>>If you use games on chess servers then it is possible that the 2000 computer >>>>simply updated the software but the result are still not written in the rating >>>>list so this is different experience than ssdf. >>>> >>>>If you are talking about static programs than based on my memory there was a >>>>version of cray blitz that beated Genius1 in every game. >>> >>>With a big hardware advantage. But It didn't win every game even though >>>it certainly should have. I don't remember the specifics now, but I played >>>something like 20 games and hit two or three draws. That was suggesting >>>a difference of 400+ rating points. The real difference was far greater. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Cray blitz had a big hardware difference but I do not think that the difference >>>>was more than 600 elo. >>> >>>At that point in time, we were talking about 500K nodes per second for >>>Cray Blitz vs genius on a 486/33, if I recall the hardware. The difference >>>was probably way more than 600 elo, based on human vs computer games against >>>both. >> >>It is possible that Genius has some weakness that humans could take advantage of >>it. >> >>Based on the ssdf rating list we have difference of less than 500 elo between >>Crafty(A1200) and Genius1(486/33 mhz). >> >>Crafty 18.12/CB 256MB Athlon 1200 MHz 2614 >>Chess Genius 1.0 486/33 MHz 2140 >> >>The difference is less than 500 ssdf elo and 500K nodes per second for cray >>blitz suggest that it was not better than Crafty on A1200 in the games that you >>played. > >Is this not the same bad NPS assumption that VD makes all the time? A CB node >is not a crafty node. > >Matt I mentioned that to Uri in my response to him. On a vector machine, you can do things that are impossibly expensive on a micro. It is not easy to vectorize a search, so the search doesn't go faster, but it is certainly possible to vectorize various parts of the engine so that they go like blazes, such as in move generation, attack detection, but most importantly, in static evaluation. Of course, you have to either know how to use vector hardware, or be willing to learn, neither of which fits Vincent and his many "impossible" comments. > > >> >>I remember that latest Cray blitz could search 7M nodes per second but I >>understood also that you limited Cray blitz >>in the games against Genius1 so 500K nodes per second seems logical. >> >>Uri
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.